Back
2020 Supreme(Kar) 397
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Alok Aradhe, Ravi V. Hosmani, JJ.
Rajani A. Padiyar And Others - Appellants
Versus
M.R. Lingaraju And Others - Respondents
M.F.A. Nos. 8333, 8334, 7256, 7257, 7258, 8335, 9103, 9104/2015 and M.F.A. No. 9105/2015 (MV)
Decided On : 05-02-2020
R.V.S. Naik, Sr. Counsel for Manjappa, Adv., Shripad V. Shastri, O. Mahesh and A. Ravishankar, Advocate, for the Appellant; O. Mahesh, A. Ravishankar, Adv., R.V.S. Naik, Sr. Counsel for Manjappa, Adv., Ravishankar A., B.L. Sanjeev and Shripad V. Shastri, Advocate, for the Respondent
The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of liability and compensation in a motor vehicle accident case, including the assessment of contributory negligence, quantum of compensation, and the rate of interest on the compensation amount.
Headnote:
ACCIDENT - MOTOR VEHICLES - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 158(6), Section 134(c) - The court discussed the contributory negligence of the drivers of the bus and lorry, and the quantum of compensation awarded to the claimants. The court held that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry, and not due to contributory negligence. The court also modified the compensation awarded to the claimants based on their income, future prospects, and medical expenses.
Fact of the Case:
The appeals arose from an accident involving a bus and a lorry, resulting in the death of one person and injuries to others. The claimants sought compensation for loss of dependency, future income, medical expenses, and other damages. The court analyzed the evidence and submissions to determine the liability of the insurers and the quantum of compensation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the accident was caused by the rash and negligent driving of the lorry, and not due to contributory negligence. The court modified the compensation awarded to the claimants based on their income, future prospects, and medical expenses. The court also addressed the issue of interest on the compensation amount.
Issues: The issues included determining the contributory negligence of the drivers, assessing the quantum of compensation for the claimants, and deciding the rate of interest on the compensation amount.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the accident was caused by the rash and negligent driving of the lorry, and not due to contributory negligence. The court also modified the compensation awarded to the claimants based on their income, future prospects, and medical expenses. The court addressed the issue of interest on the compensation amount.
Final Decision: The court disposed of the appeals by modifying the compensation awarded to the claimants and addressing the issue of interest on the compensation amount.
JUDGMENT
Alok Aradhe, J. - All these appeals arise out of an accident, which took place on 04.06.2013. The deceased Aravind Padiyar and other injured claimants were traveling in K.S.R.T.C bus bearing No. KA-01-F-9342 (hereinafter referred to as the bus for the sake of convenience) from Bangalore to Kundapur on 04.06.2013. At about 10.30 p.m. on B.M. Road of Channarayanapatna Taluk, a lorry bearing No. KA-54-3587 (hereinafter referred to as the lorry for the sake of convenience), which was coming from the opposite direction collided head on with the bus. As per the claimants, the accident happened due to rash and negligent driving of the drivers of the bus as well as the lorry. The Claims Tribunal has held the driver of the lorry was negligent to the extent of 90%, whereas, the driver of the bus has been held negligent to the extent of 10%. Being aggrieved, the insurer of driver of the lorry viz., Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd., has filed three appeals viz., MFA Nos. 7256-58/2016, whereas, the insurer of the bus viz., New India Assurance Company has filed three appeals viz., M.F.A. Nos. 9103-9105/2015. The legal representatives of the deceased have filed M.F.A. No. 8333/2015, whereas, the injured persons have filed two M.F.A. Nos. 8334-35/2015 seeking enhancement of the compensation. Since, all the three claim petitions have been decided by a common judgment dated 11.08.2015 passed by the Claims Tribunal, they were heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.
FACTS
2. In MFA No. 8333/2015 which arises out of M.V.C. No. 3946/2013, the claimants who are the widow, children and parents of the deceased pleaded that deceased was employed as Head Formulation Development (PHARMA Department) R & D Centre in Himalaya Drugs Company and was earning a sum of Rs. 5 Lakhs per month. It was also pleaded that at the time of the accident, deceased was aged about 44 years. Thus, a compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,00,00,000/- along with interest was claimed. In M.F.A. Nos. 8334-35/2015, which arise out of M.V.C. No. 4536/2013 and 3947/2013. The claimants in the aforesaid petitions pleaded before the Claims Tribunal that in the accident they suffered grievous injuries and were shifted to the hospital at Belur and thereafter to another hospital at Belur. It was pleaded by claimant in M.V.C. No. 3947/2013 that she underwent surgery and suffered amputation and due to the accident, she has suffered permanent disablement. Similarly, claimant in M.V.C. No. 4536/2013 took treatment in City Hospital, Udupi and underwent surgery and suffered permanent disability to the extent of 17%. Accordingly, the compensation was claimed.
3. In response to the notices received in the proceedings, the owner did not appear and was proceeded ex parte. The Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd., filed statement of objections, in which factum of death/injuries was denied. However, it was admitted that the lorry was insured with it. It was also pleaded that as per Section 158(6) and Section 134(c) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, neither the Investigating Officer nor the insured informed the insurance company about the accident. It was also pleaded that K.S.R.T.C authorities in collusion with jurisdictional police have got filed the chargesheet against the driver of the lorry. The age, income and avocation of the deceased as well as injured persons as well as the fact that they were traveling in the bus was also denied.
4. The respondent No. 3 viz., the insurer of the bus in the statement of objections has denied the averments and has pleaded that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the lorry by its driver. It was further pleaded that as a result of the accident, the deceased Arvind Padiyar succumbed to injures on the spot and two other claimants sustained grievous injuries. It was further pleaded that the bus was moving slowly from Bangalore to Murdeshwara on the left side of the road but the lorry, which was drive
